Kansas Crimson

It's good to see that a large portion of America no longer calls this a conspiracy. Just like how the US government lied about "weapons of mass destruction", they also lied about what really happened on 911. 911 was simply allowed by the government as an excuse to start more wars and to create things like the Patriot Act.

The following are factual:

-Tower 7 could not have collapsed the way it did from fire (confirmed by architects and scientists)
-Tower 7 contained a CIA location and tons of evidence was destroyed
-Tower 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 911 "official report" from the US government
-BBC (and other stations) reported that Tower 7 collapsed before it actually did
-Insurance companies made huge profits on the twin towers being destroyed
-Additional explosions were heard from numerous people who were in or near the two towers

These are just a few of the many things that are now accepted as facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4g_BJTH6yQ

in before hall

Where is Jeeper when I need him?

Didn't watch all the videos in their entirety other than the BBC video and I will comment on that later in this post.

Lobster - I'll go ahead and appease you.
While I do believe our government has not told us the complete truth (yes - even lied to us to varying degrees), I feel a need to say to you, there is a difference between facts and opinions.

You said, -Tower 7 could not have collapsed the way it did from fire (confirmed by architects and scientists).
* There are architects and scientists who confirm it did collapse the way it did from "fire".
It's kind of like the Global Warming conundrum. Those who claim it is real and those who claim it is false can't both be right nor both be wrong.

You said, -Tower 7 contained a CIA location and tons of evidence was destroyed.
* I believe it is a fact that Tower 7 contained a CIA location but what specific "evidence" was destroyed and what "evidence" pertained to a possible/probable attack on 9/11/01?
Who knows 100% for sure?

You said, -Tower 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 911 "official report" from the US government.
* By "official report" I think you mean the 911 "Commission Report". I believe you are correct that it wasn't mentioned. Not sure why it wasn't mentioned but supposedly it wasn't a direct target of terrorism on that day. Foreign or domestic terrorism.

You said, -BBC (and other stations) reported that Tower 7 collapsed before it actually did.
* The BBC video you posted is clearly poorly doctored/edited AND when at any point did Jane Stanley mention or comment about Tower 7 specifically?

You said, -Insurance companies made huge profits on the twin towers being destroyed.
* I don't understand your claim that Insurance companies made huge profits on the twin towers being destroyed. They lost a shit ton of money. What, 10's? 20s? 30s? of billons of dollars in payouts?
Maybe you mean long after the payouts were made?

You said, -Additional explosions were heard from numerous people who were in or near the two towers.
* Might be no reason not to believe there were explosions but there is a big reason to question what exactly the explosions were. I would have to think various things explode after an enormous building has a plane fly in to it and it catches on fire.

Do I think the government set it all up?
2% chance.

Do I think its possible the government had prior knowledge to be able to prevent it but didn’t? 15%.

Do I think our policies overseas were a large factor into this attack? 99.9%.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:34 am Do I think the government set it all up?
2% chance.

Do I think its possible the government had prior knowledge to be able to prevent it but didn’t? 15%.

Do I think our policies overseas were a large factor into this attack? 99.9%.

This thread is not worthy of the reasonableness of this post.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:06 pmin before hall

We have a hall?

Sorry, I have been super busy.

JFC lobster.

I don't stop by often but when I do, this is what is posted here? No, no, no, no.

Here's a laypersons explanation on the collapse because yes there is a NIST report for Building 7.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno ... 4/4278874/

And yes I am a structural engineer so I do understand the report, and no there are no credible engineers (mechanical/electrical/mining engineers don't count) who are claiming the NIST building collapse report is false and don't even get me started on architects talking about how much they know about tall structures because they do not or they would register as structural engineers and make more money. I have a drawer of these videos sent to me by crackpots who want an engineer who they saw published to verify their "research" for them. For fuck's sake believe in god damn Nessie or bigfoot or flying saucers or chemtrails instead; those have a better chance of panning out for you in the long run.

So to paraphrase.....bullshit.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:50 pm I don't stop by often but when I do, this is what is posted here? No, no, no, no.

Here's a laypersons explanation on the collapse because yes there is a NIST report for Building 7.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno ... 4/4278874/

And yes I am a structural engineer so I do understand the report, and no there are no credible engineers (mechanical/electrical/mining engineers don't count) who are claiming the NIST building collapse report is false and don't even get me started on architects talking about how much they know about tall structures because they do not or they would register as structural engineers and make more money. I have a drawer of these videos sent to me by crackpots who want an engineer who they saw published to verify their "research" for them. For fuck's sake believe in god damn Nessie or bigfoot or flying saucers or chemtrails instead; those have a better chance of panning out for you in the long run.

So to paraphrase.....bullshit.

Nice try, CIA guy.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:15 pm

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:50 pm I don't stop by often but when I do, this is what is posted here? No, no, no, no.

Here's a laypersons explanation on the collapse because yes there is a NIST report for Building 7.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno ... 4/4278874/

And yes I am a structural engineer so I do understand the report, and no there are no credible engineers (mechanical/electrical/mining engineers don't count) who are claiming the NIST building collapse report is false and don't even get me started on architects talking about how much they know about tall structures because they do not or they would register as structural engineers and make more money. I have a drawer of these videos sent to me by crackpots who want an engineer who they saw published to verify their "research" for them. For fuck's sake believe in god damn Nessie or bigfoot or flying saucers or chemtrails instead; those have a better chance of panning out for you in the long run.

So to paraphrase.....bullshit.

Nice try, CIA guy.

Deep state.

We all know lobster is a little off, but this is full blown bat shit crazy stuff

Didn't the fire department just let the building burn because it was too dangerous to attempt to extinguish, which eventually caused it's collapse? I believe everybody had been evacuated by then.

the day it happened, I remember watching the towers fall in real time and thinking, man that's not how I would have imagined a building that got hit by an airplane would fall.

but yeah, I stop short of full blown conspiracy.

Right. But we do know the buildings were hit by airplanes. And we do know they fell. With a little "inside" help? Or not? We may never know 100% for sure.
I will never forget being at the CBOE and us watching the first tower smoke/burn on TV.
Boss man was on speaker phone with his cousin who is NYC freaking out as he was heading to the NYSE. We hear his cousin say HOLY FUCK. About 2 seconds later we see the 2nd plane hit the 2nd tower live on TV.
Silence from everybody. Then as surreal as it was, everything started sinking in. We immediately figured (knew?) shit was going down other than an "accident".

Cascadia wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:48 pm We all know lobster is a little off, but this is full blown bat shit crazy stuff

You can't debunk anything I posted above.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:50 pm I don't stop by often but when I do, this is what is posted here? No, no, no, no.

Here's a laypersons explanation on the collapse because yes there is a NIST report for Building 7.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno ... 4/4278874/

And yes I am a structural engineer so I do understand the report, and no there are no credible engineers (mechanical/electrical/mining engineers don't count) who are claiming the NIST building collapse report is false and don't even get me started on architects talking about how much they know about tall structures because they do not or they would register as structural engineers and make more money. I have a drawer of these videos sent to me by crackpots who want an engineer who they saw published to verify their "research" for them. For fuck's sake believe in god damn Nessie or bigfoot or flying saucers or chemtrails instead; those have a better chance of panning out for you in the long run.

So to paraphrase.....bullshit.

Buildings can not collapse symmetrically from asymmetrical damage.

How many of you believed in "weapons of mass destruction"? Do you still believe it? It's been proven the US government lied to go to war. 911 was just an earlier step of the bigger plan.

I'll agree that I think the people in power were psyched to go to war.
It was a win win for their positions in the private and public sector.
Did they rush into any opportunity to go to war? Sure.
Did they set up an extremely risky ( that could COMPLETELY backfire and have the public end up in some sort of revolution ) massively complicated setup to spark said war? Doubt it.